Share this article with friends
Academician E. M. ZHUKOV. The Twenty-Second CPSU Congress and the Tasks of Soviet Historians
Emphasizing the vast historical significance of the new CPSU Programme and the other documents adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress, the author focusses his attention on an analysis of the multiform problems confronting Soviet historical science. E. M. Zhukov points out that the elimination of the Stalin personality cult and re-establishment of the Leninist standards and principles in the entire life of Soviet society also exerted a beneficent influence on the development of creative scientific research. The Twenty-Second CPSU Congress, the author notes, gave us a better and deeper understanding of the harmful effects resulting from the personality cult and rendered invaluable assistance to Soviet historical science, helping our researchers in the history of the Party, the history of Soviet society and contemporary history to give a more objective and correct analysis of historical facts and events and enabling them to develop and augment the new fundamental propositions adopted by historical. science on the basis of the Twentieth CPSU Congress decisions.
The main tasks facing Soviet historians, the author writes, directly follow from the general prospects of our social development, which are clearly formulated in the new CPSU Programme adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress. One of the distinguishing features of this document is its precise and concrete formulations, its theoretical depth combined with practical, businesslike approach to all problems. The Programme contains very distinct and clearly differentiated definitions of the basic trends in the activity of the multivarious units forming the great army of builders of communism. Special attention in the CPSU Programme is devoted to historians and their paramount tasks. The central tasks facing Soviet historians is to disclose on the basis of concrete historical material the objective laws governing the development of human society, the inevitability of its progressive advance from the lower to the higher forms of social life, to provide scientific substantiation of the inevitability of the triumph of communism on a world-wide scale. It is not accidental, the author stresses, that the ideological enemies of Marxism-Leninism see their principal task in refuting the laws governing mankind's advance to communism, in disproving the existence of objective laws of social development.
The author further proceeds to examine the concrete tasks facing Soviet historians working in diverse fields of research and points to a number of fallacious and erroneous tendencies which developed in historical science during the personality cult period.
Researchers specializing in the history of Soviet society are faced with particularly big and important tasks. The new CPSU Programme solemnly proclaims that "history is made by the people, and communism is a creation of the people, of its energy and intelligence." And the author urges Soviet historians to direct their efforts to an attentive and tireless study of the valuable experience accumulated by the popular masses-the makers of history, so that the future generations may fully appreciate the significance of the feat accomplished by the first builders of communism, the formidable difficulties they had to contend with and the vast energy awakened in them by the Party of Lenin, which helped them to perform miracles. One of the most burning tasks standing before Soviet historians is to disclose the multiform experience accumulated by our country in the sphere of socialist and communist construction, as well as the successes of other countries in the building of socialism. In other words, they must write a history of the birth of the new world.
An important place is devoted in the article to the tasks of historians making research in the history of the international communist and working-class movement, the Soviet Union's peaceable foreign policy, the history of Asian, African and Latin-American countries, the history of Marxism-Leninism, the history of pre-Marxian Utopian socialist ideas, etc. Many pressing problems of the social sciences can and must be solved by coordinated research, by establishing creative cooperation between historians, philosophers, economists, lawyers and philologists. The author draws the attention of Soviet historians to the need of extending popularization work in order to be able to contribute to the shaping of the new man of communist society not only by their research but also by producing popular-scientific works.
The CPSU Programme and other Party documents are a reliable compass indicating the correct approach to many complex events and phenomena of our time and making it easier to explain these phenomena from the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist science.
The Twenty-Second CPSU Congress graphically demonstrated the importance attached by the Party to the development of science in the U.S.S.R. at the present stage of the full-scale construction of communist society. N. S. Khrushchov's reports and the CPSU Programme emphasize the Party's unflagging concern for the progress of science in our country and passionately appeal to scientists in every field to make their creative contribution to the building of communism. There need be no doubt, the author writes in conclusion, that Soviet historians will promptly respond to this appeal by redoubling their effort in all fields of research.
F. I. TAMONOV. An Object Lesson of History
The author of this article sets himself the task of showing the progress of hostilities in the Battle of Moscow in the autumn of 1941 and illustrating the international significance of the defeat of the German fascist troops on the approaches to the Soviet capital. It is stressed in the article that throughout the 1941 campaign the nazi command regarded Moscow as the chief strategic objective, and the offensive against Moscow launched by the German fascist army in the autumn of 1941 as the general battle which should result not only in the successful termination of the summer-autumn campaign but in the victorious conclusion of the war against the U.S.S.R.
The article describes the defensive measures carried out by the Soviet Supreme Command on the Western sector of the front in the summer of 1941: the strengthening of the defence positions held by the Soviet Army, ensuring a reliable system of air defence in and around Moscow, reinforcing this sector with fresh reserves. As a result of these measures the enemy was compelled, in August 1941, to pass to the defensive on this sector of the Soviet-German front.
The general offensive against Moscow mounted by the German fascist troops at the close of September drastically changed the situation. The line of Soviet defences was breached on an extensive front. Many Soviet Army units found themselves surrounded by the enemy. In these circumstances the Soviet Supreme Command took a series of urgent measures to defeat the enemy on the approaches to Moscow. The author describes the strengthening of the defence line at Mozhaisk and he establishment of the Moscow Defence Zone, proclaiming a state of siege in the Soviet capital and Moscow Region, screening of the Moscow flanks in the Kalinin and Tula areas, reinforcing Soviet Army units on the Western sectors of the front with General Staff reserves, mobilization of the working population of Moscow for the defence of their native city.
As a result of these measures and the unparalleled heroism displayed by the armed forces and the population the enemy offensive against Moscow was stopped in the early part of December. This signified the ignominious collapse of the "lightning war" strategy and the Barbarossa plan. Such, in brief, was the chief result of the defensive battle of Moscow.
On December 6, 1941, the Soviet Army launched a counteroffensive in the Moscow area and in a number of other sectors of the front, which resulted in the rout of 38 enemy divisions on the Moscow sector alone. In the offensive battles fought in the period January - April 1942 the Soviet Army routed another 30 divisions of the enemy.
In conclusion the author brings out the military and political significance of the Battle of Moscow, which marked the first major victory for the Soviet Armed Forces after a long period of retreat and heavy reverses. By winning this battle the Soviet Command gained an opportunity to carry out a series of sweeping offensive operations on all sectors of the front. As testified by some of the nazi generals, the Battle of Moscow exploded the myth about the invincibility of the Hitler army. After this battle the nazi command was no longer in a position to conduct offensive operations on all sectors of the front. The article shows the powerful impact the nazi defeat at Moscow had on the activization of the Resistance Movement in the nazi-occupied countries of Europe, on the growing determination of different nations to join forces in the common struggle against the German fascist aggressors, on the gradual rise and development of the anti-Hitler coalition. These combined forces were strong enough to inflict a decisive defeat on nazi Germany already in 1942 but, unfortunately, this possibility could not be realized owing to the treacherous policy of the U.S. and British governments which, despite their solemn promise, kept delaying the opening of the second front in Europe.
The historic Battle of Moscow decisively influenced the course of the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War and created very real opportunities for a radical turning point in the progress of the second world war. There need be no doubt that if the second front in Europe were opened in due time and nazi Germany were deprived of the possibility freely to dispose of its reserves, the decisive turning point in World War II would have brought victory to the anti-Hitler coalition way back in 1942.
A. L. SIDOROV. Certain Aspects of the Development of Russian Capitalism in Soviet Historical Science
The article analyzes the latest trends in Soviet historiography in the sphere of research in the history of capitalism. The interest shown by Soviet historians and economists in this problem is determined by the fact that the development of large-scale capitalist production is the basic factor which led to the victory of the capitalist system. In future this trend of historical development and the aggravation of antagonistic contradictions will lead to the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by the socialist mode of production. Hence, an analysis of Russia's industrial development creates the basis for a clear understanding of the rise and development of the capitalist social system in Russia with all its concrete manifestations and distinctive features.
The structure of the article and the selection of surveyed literature are determined by the content of creative discussions taking place at the present time and relating chiefly to the problem of the genesis of capitalism and the specific features of Russia's economic development in the period of imperialism.
The author points out that a precise characteristic of the principal stages in the genesis of capitalism was given by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and V. 1. Lenin, who indicated the three basic forms of organization of production in industry, which replaced one another in the process of historical development. From small commodity production to capitalist manufacture and then to the factory (large-scale machine industry) - such are the principal stages of capitalist development in industry, which are at the same time the principal landmarks in the formation of capitalism and its subsequent development into the capitalist system. Constituting an historical basis for the development of capitalism, the first two forms do not yet affect the foundations of the feudal system within which they are developing. The appearance of large-scale machine industry finalizes the process of subjugation of wage labour by capital and signifies the victory of new capitalist relations.
A. L. Sidorov shows the basic aspects of discussions on the problem of the genesis of capitalism in Russia, namely, the nature of the Russian manufacture in the 17th - 18th centuries, the problem of the so-called initial accumulation and the time of the industrial revolution in Russia.
The discussion concerning the character of the Russian manufacture was begun in the late 1920's. By mid-1950's there emerged two distinctive points of view in the treatment of this problem. According to one of these viewpoints, which is expressed most clearly in Academician S. G. Strumilin's works, the Russian manufacture in the 17th - 18th centuries was distinctively capitalist in character. Proceeding from this assumption, S. G. Strumilin maintains that the birth of capitalism took place in the 16th century and that the industrial revolution was completed before the abolition of serfdom. The other viewpoint in its most generalized form was expressed by Academician N. M. Druzhinin in a paper read at the 1955 International Congress of Historians in Rome. Having made a comprehensive analysis of Russia's development from the 17th to the first half of the 19th century, N. M. Druzhinin drew attention to the fact that manufacturing enterprises employing wage labour existed in Russia already in the 17th century (fish-processing factories and saltworks). However, he emphasized" that the role of free hire should not be exaggerated, since at that period, i. e., in the 17th century, the government introduced a system of "registering" peasants to the factories, which led to the emergence of manufacturing enterprises employing compulsory labour. And it is precisely the existence of two different types of manufacturing enterprises-employing freely hired labour and based on the exploitation of serf labour-that constitutes the essential distinction between the industrial development of Russia and the West. The rise of capitalism, according to Druzhinin, took place in the sixties-seventies of the 18th century, while the industrial revolution began in the sixties-seventies of the 19th century (by this time more than half the workers employed in the manufacturing industry were freely hired) and ended in the seventies-eighties.
Drawing on his analysis of a number of research works published in recent years and devoted to the economic structure of the manufacture in the 17th-18th centuries (works by F. Y Polyansky, N. V. Ustyugov, E. I. Zaozerskaya, A. M. Razgon), to the formation of an all-Russian market (works by A. T. Merzon, Y. A. Tikhonov, B. B. Kafenhaus), to the initial accumulation of capital (a special collection of articles, F. Y. Polyansky's book and works by N. I. Pavlenko), to Russia's industrial development in the first half of the 19th century and to the industrial revolution (researches by V. K. Yatsunsky, P. P. Ryndziunsky, I. D. Kovalchenko and others), the author comes to the conclusion that despite the still continuing differences and arguments, the joint creative effort by a large body of historians and economists has yielded valuable results. A firm foundation has been laid for the Marxist history of Russia's industrial development and the margin of existing differences has narrowed down considerably. In the interest of an effective and fruitful elaboration of the problem the traditional specialization of researchers "according to centuries" should be abandoned, since it hampers research work; in order to disclose the causes of the crisis of feudalism and the genesis of capitalism the old specialization method makes it necessary to trace the events from their occurrence to the logical conclusion,
Another important problem facing Soviet historians is to intensify research work in the history of the proletariat, which was initiated by A. M. Pankratova.
The article further says that in recent years historical research in the economic problems of Russian imperialism proceeded along the following lines: economic development of individual areas (including the outlying national districts); the development of specific branches of industry and the formation of monopolies there; the development of finance capital, joint stock companies and the activity of the banks; research in the problems concerning the interrelations between the government and the monopolies, state-monopoly capitalism in Russia, the financial policy of the Russian government and the letter's dependence on international imperialism.
Whereas research in the development of Russian imperialism in the country's individual areas and national borderlands is only making its first steps and much still remains to be done in this respect, writes A. L. Sidorov, the situation is quite different in the field of research devoted to the development and monopolization of the most important industrial branches en a country-wide scale, where a significant headway has already been made. The present-day state of science is characterized by the fact that profound research in the history of heavy industry (monographs and articles by A. L. Tsukernik, P. V. Volobuyev, G. A. Akhundov, V. I. Bovykin, K. F. Shatsillo and others) is accompanied by the study of diverse branches of the light industry (works by V. Y. Laverichev, E. E. Kruze, K. I. Bobkov), as well as of the railway and water transport (works by A. M. Solovyova and V. Mozhin). Substantial progress has been made in elaborating the history of Russia's commercial banks, banking monopolies, the formation of finance capital and the government's financial policy (monographs and articles by I. F. Gindin, A. L. Sidorov, V. I. Bovykin, L. Y. Shepelev). There is also an essentially new approach to the problem of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia (monographs and articles by K. N. Tarnovsky, A. P. Pogrebinsky, P. V. Volobuyev, I. F. Gindin, V. I. Bovykin, Y. I. Livshin). The computations made by T. D. Krupina considerably extended our knowledge of the number of monopolies in Russia; we now have more accurate chronological data concerning the establishment of monopoly associations in Russia (they appeared between the late seventies and the early eighties); the opinion that Russia did not have any monopolies similar to trusts and concerns has been effectively refuted (however, the author believes that this conclusion requires further elucidation); the views concerning the dependence of Russian banks on foreign capital, borrowed from the literature published in the 1920's, have been essentially corrected. In the light of the latest researches the Russian financial magnates who directed the activity of the banks appear to be more independent of diverse foreign banks and capital investments (compared with the picture presented before).
The article stresses that the chief result of research in the problem of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia is the well-substantiated conclusion that Russian capitalism passed the monopoly stage of development. State-monopoly tendencies are clearly manifested from the moment when Russian capitalism entered the monopoly stage, and the system of government regulation appeared in Russia, as in other belligerent countries, in the years of the first world war. The discussion now in progress among historians studying the problem of state-monopoly capitalism is centred around the question of subordination of the state apparatus to the capitalist monopolies.
The work accomplished by Soviet historians and economists in recent years has paved the way for a serious exchange of opinions on the problem concerning the distinctive features of Russian imperialism. The discussion of this problem was initiated by A. L. Sidorov and began with an analysis of the character of the military and feudal aspects of imperialism.
Summing up the results, the author emphasizes that in the process of studying the nature of monopoly capitalism in Russia and bringing out the peculiarities of its emergence and development, the researchers devoted chief attention to the economic aspect of the problem, while a number of other important aspects of the problem are still insufficiently investigated. Of paramount importance in this respect is research in the history of the working class-the gravedigger of capitalism. Intensified research in this field is one of the urgent tasks confronting historical science.
N. Y. MERPERT and D. B. SHELOV. Archeology and Historical Science
Profound and all-round research in the problems of ancient and medieval human history, the article stresses, is inconceivable without constant and extensive use of archeological data, whose role is particularly great in studying the history of the earliest human societies which did not know the art of writing. Drawing on the data provided by material monuments also facilitates the solution of certain historical problems of successive class societies possessing written languages-problems that remain practically uninvestigated in written sources. Among these is the development of material production, rites and customs, culture and way of life of the basic mass of the population-the creators of material values, i. e., questions which, as a rule, receive no attention in written sources. The role of archeological research in the sum-total of our historical knowledge is constantly in-
creasing. The authors point out that there now exist a number of generalized works based on the study of archeological material, which re-create the thousand-year-old and hitherto unknown history of many areas of the Soviet Union. Elaboration of the new methods of archeological research based on the achievements of natural sciences and the vast scope of archeological excavations open up new and broad vistas to Soviet archeology and increase its share in the solution of many problems of historical science.
The 'significance of archeological data in elucidating most diverse aspects of the history of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. is illustrated by the authors on many vivid examples.
Extensive research carried out in recent years has resulted in the discovery of a number of early Paleolithic monuments in many southern areas of our country (Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan and the Dniester Basin), which leads our scientists to the conclusion that in the earliest stages of human history extensive areas in the southern parts of the U.S.S.R. were inhabited by man. At the close of the early Paleolithic period the habitations of man spread over vast territories stretching to the middle reaches of the Volga and Desna rivters. The abundance of historical monuments discovered in these areas makes it possible to study the peculiarities of the local variants of culture which existed in the Paleolithic era and trace the destinies of individual population groups belonging to that distant historical period.
The economic development of ancient societies, the economic activity of man at every stage of his historical development is one of the major aspects of archeological research. Very revealing and indicative in this respect is the discovery of new data on the rise and development of the oldest land-cultivation cultures on the territory of our country. Not so long ago there were only three known seats of ancient agriculture dating back to the third millennium В. С, namely, the southern parts of Central Asia, Transcaucasia and the fertile area lying between the Dnieper and the Dniester rivers. The remaining areas, it was generally believed, were inhabited by backward tribes of primitive hunters who did not yet learn the art of land cultivation. Now it has been established that the appearance of these seats of agriculture dates back to the 5th - 4th millenniums В. С, that in the Aeneolithic age agriculture, to one or another degree, was also practised by other tribes, that the productive forms of the economy-primitive agriculture and the attendant domestication of wild animals-arose in the south of our country at a comparatively early date and spread over a considerable territory in a relatively short space of time.
The authors point to the difficulties involved in reconstructing the history of social relations in ancient times on the basis of archeological data. At the same time they stress that this complex task is being successfully solved by Soviet archeologists with regard to many societies. A graphic illustration is provided by research in the social development of the Scythian-Sarmatic world, where all the stages of social progress-from the predominance of tribal relations with strong survivals of the matriarchal clan system among the early Sarmatians to the establishment of a class society and the state by the Scythianstare traced archeologically. Another example is furnished by the use of archeological material for conducting research in the history of the rise and development of the Bulgar state on the Volga and Kama rivers.
Archeological data are of great significance in solving the problem of the origin of feudal relations and the ancient Russian state. Archeology has helped to reveal the cultural development of individual tribes inhabiting ancient Rus prior to the establishment of the Kiev Rus; it has enabled our scientists to trace the progress in all branches of the economy of ancient Slavs-the development of agriculture, emergence of the crafts, the appearance of towns, feudal castles and estates, etc. The examination of a large number of burial mounds and barrows paints a vivid picture of the gradual disintegration of tribal relations, the emergence of the feudal aristocracy as a distinctive social group and the appearance of feudal warriors. These archeological facts in conjunction with ancient written sources make it possible to bring out many concrete peculiarities attending the transition of the Slavs from the primitive communal system to a class society and to the creation of their own statehood.
Even certain phenomena pertaining to political history, notably the migration of different tribes and military conquests, can in many cases be fruitfully studied only by drawing on areheclogical material. A good illustration is provided by such an important historical event as the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus. Only archeological excavations made it possible to resolve the long-standing controversy regarding the consequences of the Tatar massacre in the history of Kiev and the Kiev Rus: the discovered material monuments testify to the wanton extermination of the entire population of Kiev. Archeological materials also enable us to form a clear idea of the deleterious effect made by the Tatar yoke on the economic and cultural development of ancient Rus.
The authors cite the latest archeological data enabling Soviet historians to study many aspects of the material and even spiritual culture of ancient Rus. Thus, the history of the ancient Russian crafts has been re-established exclusively on the basis of archeological materials. Archeology effectively contributes to research in the history of ancient agriculture, trade relations and currency circulation in ancient Rus, military and civil engineering, the planning and improvement of Russian towns, the history of architecture, etc. Even such a specific branch of spiritual culture as the ancient Russian system of writing has now lost much of its former mystery owing to the discovery of ancient inscriptions, drawings and, in particular, birch-bark scrolls.
The article illustrates the role of archeological research in the solution of ethnogenic problems, in the elaboration of general questions concerning the ethnic origin and development of big linguistic families and groups, such as the Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and other languages, and in the study of the origin of concrete peoples. These problems are solved by archeologists in close cooperation with linguists, anthropologists and ethnographers. Research in the earliest history of the Indo-European linguistic family is cited by the authors as an example. Retrospective examination of archeological monuments belonging to the early Iron Age, the bronze period and the Aeneolithic era in the southern part of Eastern Europe and the adjacent Asian territories makes it possible to trace the undoubted genetic ties of the Indo-European population inhabiting the Black Sea and pre-Caspian steppelands dating back to hoary antiquity (3rd millennium B. C). It is also possible to trace archeologically the all-Caucasian cultural unity in the 3rd millennium B. C, which implies the existence of an all-Caucasian ethnical community whose origin goes back to the Neolithic era.
I. S. KON. Christian Philosophy of History in the Service of Reaction
The Christian philosophy of history, the article notes, represents one of the most influential and rapidly developing trends in contemporary bourgeois philosophy of history. Its progagandists and adepts include theologians (K. Bart, R. Niebuhr, M. C. D'Arcy and others), neo-Thomist philosophers (J. Maritain, A. Dempf) and many professional historians (H. T. Marrou, H. Butterfield, A. J. Toynbee and others). Clerical theories of the historical process and historical cognition exert a considerable influence on the practice of bourgeois historiography. The religious philosophy of history plays an important part in providing theoretical substantiation for the social and political programme of present-day Catholicism.
I. S. Ken examines the philosophico-historical conceptions of many contemporary religious thinkers, illustrating most comprehensively the views of Jacques Maritain, one of the prominent leaders of neo-Thomism. Without laying claim to an all-round analysis of the Christian philosophy of history, the author shows how it solves three basic problems: 1) The nature and character of historical cognition; 2) The sum and substance of the historical process, and 3) The prospects of mankind's continued development.
Representatives of the Christian philosophy of history, the article points out, go out of their way to emphasize their interest in historical cognition and their hostility towards relativist and irrationalist theories of history. At a reception in Rome in honour of the participants in the Congress of Historical Sciences, Pope Pius XII sharply criticized the relativist nature of neo-idealist "historism" and affirmed the possibility of objective historical cognition. This view is also shared by the majority of religious philosophers and theologians. But despite these claims, Christian philosophy of history is profoundly inimical to scientific historical knowledge. It regards history not as a science but as a sphere of activity of mysterious supernatural forces which cannot be apprehended in a rational way. According to the American Protestant theologian R. Niebuhr, the problem of historical cognition is "an insoluble problem." "Christian personalist" N. Berdyaev maintains that historical cognition is not an objective reflection of reality independent of the subject of cognition, but "an internal process making for closer affinity between subject and object," kindred to Platonic "recollection." As to the philosophy of history, it is, according to Berdyaev, "a philosophy not of empirical reality, but a philosophy of the nether worlds." Emphasizing the "rationalism" of the Thomist philosophy, J. Maritain writes of the "intelligible" meaning of history, but this meaning appears to be "trans-historic" and cannot be apprehended scientifically. According to Maritain, neither empirical historiography nor the philosophy of history that stands above it can provide "an explanation of history." From the viewpoint of the Thomist philosophy, history is "not a problem subject to solution, but a mystery that has'to be contemplated." I. S. Kon convincingly proves that the Christian philosophy of history represents extreme agnosticism in historical thinking which it strives to subordinate completely to theology and mystical "revelation."
Analyzing the views of Christian theologians and philosophers on the "meaning" of history, I. S, Kon shows that they conceal a mystified treatment of the problem of history as a law-governed process. However, having substituted the concept of the objective laws immanent in the historical process for divine providence, Christian philosophy gives rise to insoluble internal contradictions. Recognition of divine providence as the absolute, rules out the responsibility of men for their actions, while the thesis on freedom of the human will is in glaring contradiction to religious fatalism. Mindful of this contradiction, Christian philosophers are making every effort to resoive or at least moderate it. However, a careful analysis of Maritain's concept shows that the solution he offers remains a formal and sophistic one. The insolubility of the problem of freedom and necessity within the framework of the theological theory of history also makes itself felt in its approach to the "meaning" of history, a problem that gives rise to widely differing concepts among theologians. Some authors (K. Bart, for instance) accentuate the otherworldness of the kingdom of God, thereby completely disparaging the real historical process. To them, the "mean-
ing" of history is only in its "consummation." Politically, this "ascetic" point of view leads to quietism, to aloofness from active participation in the affairs of the "godless" world. Other authors, the majority of contemporary theologians and religious philosophers assert that God not only stands above history but is invisibly present in it. Thereby history acquires a definite meaning and a possibility of progress. But even so the "meaning'' of history appears as something transcendental, and the idea of progress is incompatible with Christian eschatology, with the doctrine of the end of history.
The dual interpretation of the "meaning" of history engenders a dual view of the prospects of social development. The proponents of extreme religious asceticism completely renounce modern civilization, advocating mankind's return to the Middle Ages. Other, more flexible thinkers clearly realize the impracticability of such appeals and try to adjust their social doctrine to conditions of present-day capitalism, proposing merely to "perfect" it in the spirit of "Christian humanism." This adjustment to conditions of monopoly capitalism is characteristic not only of Maritain but also of the official social programme of the Catholic Church, set out in the "Mater et magistra" - an encyclical letter recently circulated by Pope John XXIII.
Analyzing this aspect of the Christian philosophy of history, I. S. Kon shows that it presents a distorted, ideological reflection of the real process of "estrangement" of the human essence, inevitable under capitalist conditions. I. S. Kon effectively proves that the only correct approach to this problem is provided by Marxist-Leninist theory, and that its practical solution is embodied in the communist system. Communism is genuine humanism. As for the Thomist "integral humanism" and the social programme set forth in the papal encyclical letter, phraseology is the only thing that distinguishes it from the "secular" bourgeois propaganda with its preachment of "people's capitalism," "welfare state" and "humane relations in industry,"
The author substantiates his conclusion that the clerical philosophy of history is profoundly reactionary both in its theoretical substance and political principles and is an important ideological weapon of imperialism.
A. A. SHEVYAKOV. From the History of German Imperialism's Economic Expansion in Rumania in 1936 - 1941
The article is devoted to an analysis of the methods of expansion employed by fascist Germany in Rumania as well as to illustrating the role of Britain, France and the U.S.A. as accomplices in this expansion. Chronologically, the article embraces the period beginning with the German-Italian intervention in Spain in the second half of 1936 and ending with nazi Germany's perfidious attack on the U.S.S.R.
The author's research into this problem is based on collections of documents on the history of the Rumanian Communist Party, captured Rumanian archives, notably the archive documents of Antonescu's military Cabinet, and the government and Foreign Ministry archives of monarchist-fascist Rumania.
The opening part of the article examines the essence of the Anglo-Franco-American policy of encouraging fascist aggression and the position of the ruling classes of bourgeois-landlord Rumania and other countries of Southeast Europe resulting from this policy.
Then the author analyzes Rumania's internal and international position, showing (he activization of the reactionary forces in the country and the increasingly pro-German policy pursued by Rumania's ruling circles, which found its most vivid manifestation in the course of the negotiations conducted by representatives of Rumania's leading bourgeois parties with the top leaders of fascist Germany.
Much space in the article is devoted to an analysis of Germany's economic expansion in Rumania and the growing subjection of Rumania's economy to nazi Germany.
The second part of the article shows the intensification of the anti-Soviet and anti-national policy of the Rumanian bourgeoisie, the direct compact between the ruling classes of monarchist Rumania and fascist Germany, which led to the establishment of a military-fascist dictatorship in Rumania and culminated in the country's occupation by nazi Germany. With the entry of the German troops in Rumania and the letter's adherence to the triple alliance in November 1940, the article stresses, monarchist Rumania began total preparations for war against the U.S.S.R., for converting the country into a strategic bridgehead from which the fascist bloc could launch its treacherous attack on the U.S.S.R. The military and political subjugation of Rumania was accompanied, with the encouragement and direct assistance of the Rumanian government, by the German monopolies' intensified efforts to seize key positions in the country's economy. As the author points out, an exceptionally important part in this respect was played by the conclusion, on December 4, 1940, of a Rumanian-German economic agreement on the implementation of a "long-range plan" envisaged by the treaty of March 23, 1939.
faking advantage of these extremely favourable opportunities, German monopoly capital laid its hands primarily on the extraction and refining of oil, the metallurgical industry and transport. The German monopolists also established their control over a si-
zable part of the timber, paper, chemical, food and textile industries. A large number of Rumanian banks and insurance companies fell under the sway of German finance capital. Extensive opportunities were offered to German capital in the sphere of agriculture.
Having drawn Rumania into Berlin's multi-lateral clearing system, German imperialism was also fully able to dictate its terms in the sphere of Rumania's foreign trade. In accordance with the German-Rumanian protocol signed on October 5, 1940, Rumania was required to deliver its entire agricultural produce and the whole output of its timber, food, mining and oil industries exclusively to Germany and, moreover, at invariable prices. Thus, the German monopolies acquired complete control of Rumania's export and import trade. Rumanian importers found themselves completely dependent on the will of the German trusts, concerns and business firms. It was the German business tycoons, not the Rumanian authorities, who determined the volume of imports of the railway, mining and industrial equipment, coal, steel, cast iron, various instruments and agricultural machines.
The anti-Soviet and anti-national policy of the Rumanian ruling classes, their alliance with the most aggressive forces of world reaction resulted in the complete loss of Rumania's national independence. Only the working class in alliance with the poorest sections of the peasantry could lead the country out of this hopeless plight. The tasks confronting the Rumanian Communists were carried out successfully: the fascist dictatorial regime was overthrown and the Rumanian bourgeoisie deprived of its power.
Today Rumania, along with many other East-European and Asian countries that have cast off the chains of national and alien oppression, is successfully building socialism and is sharing actively in the promotion of durable peace and international friendship.
Permanent link to this publication:
LRussia LWorld Y G